[current issue] [back issues] [submissions] [links] [staff] [mail us]

Media coverage of the Zimbabwe 'land crisis'


by Jo Harvey 

All Rights Reserved © Jo Harvey and Deep South
Deepsouth v.6.n.3 (Spring 2000)

 
My research project is an investigation into the coverage of an international news item. I chose to focus my study on the recent 'Zimbabwe crisis.' What I was particularly interested in was how this story was produced, delivered, and ideologically consumed. In other words how the story was shaped, organised and presented to the viewer with a certain ideological value while still 'appearing' to be objective. 
 
 
Theoretically, this project turns to Noam Chomsky and Edward Hermann's theories to illustrate the organisational principles of the media while also referring to Pierre Bourdieu and Pierre Sorlin. In this way, I charted the placement and prominence of the Zimbabwe stories in different national media to see what, if any, considerable differences were measurable. This analysis served to indicate the importance of the story determined by the amounts of media coverage the story received.
 
  
My investigation examined the perspectives of the story from three different geopolitical positions. After review of this international coverage, the following questions emerged: Does Britain's television coverage and The London Times articles appear less objective to the issues raised in the coverage of the 'Zimbabwe crisis' than, say, the United States? Were there major differences due to Britain's colonial past with Zimbabwe that would suggest a "less objective" slant? Furthermore, how did New Zealand (a country whose news coverage is dependant upon both UK and US news sources) present the Zimbabwe story? Did New Zealand follow the United States line of coverage or did we side with Britain's perspective (what are the implications, in other words, New Zealand as a member of the British Commonwealth)? 
 
 

While I had hoped to gain a perspective into Zimbabwe's media coverage of 'The Crisis' (I was unable to access 'Zimbabwean Broadcasting) and due to time restrictions I was unable to conduct a thorough and fair investigation into their perspectives and coverage. I did, however, gain access to articles from The Zimbabwe Independent which will serve to pose some contingent, rather than final, conclusions.
 
 
 

Pierre Sorlin states that the media has "the powerful ability to shape public attitude".1 This is indeed its major drawingcard. Following Sorlin's position, the key ideological position projected in the coverage of this event is Imperialism and the humanist values that uphold behind it. As Edward Said suggests, cultural attitudes in the present, for reasons that are partly embedded in the imperial experience, have re- emerged "the old divisions between coloniser and colonised."2 He goes on to argue that this "has entailed defensiveness, various kinds of rhetorical and ideological combat, and a simmering hostility that is quite likely to trigger devastating wars." I believe this relates to the Zimbabwe crisis in the following ways. 
 
 

During the week of my close analysis of the Zimbabwe situation, black war veterans who fought for independence from Britain in the 1970's were occupying the farms of white farmers who (until this day) own most of Zimbabwe's fertile- farming land. In April of 2000, the imperialist tensions came to a head when violence and mayhem broke out while Zimbabwe's President, Robert Mugabe, simultaneously condoned the anarchy because, he believes, the land is part of what the black's fought for in the independence struggle. The land was initially to be redistributed after the signing of 'The Lancaster House Agreement,' which granted Zimbabwe independence from Britain. However, redistribution has been stalled several times in the last two decades due to disagreements from Britain and Zimbabwe over the terms of compensation funding and resettlement policies. Mugabe is not ordering the squatters to leave and appears to be stirring up racial violence. He has in fact outwardly named the white farmers "the enemy." Murder and rape now frequently occur in this former British colony.
 
 
 

As the Western media present it however, Mugabe has stirred the violence in order to save his own political hide. There is some truth to this and as recent election results have proved Zimbabwe people wanted a new Government. Crippling fuel shortages and unemployment is on the increase under Mugabe's administration. In February 2000, Mugabe lost a referendum that would have awarded his administration the authority to confiscate white-owned farming land without paying compensation. Accusations of corruption in governmental departments are also rife. The Western media portray Mugabe's strategy as one which brings up old issues of land struggles so as to appeal to voters. Furthermore, this is seen as a move to win more from the rural sector. Mugabe thus becomes as a moral crusader in the voter's eyes. The press also suggested that the President was attempting to hold off the next election, it was widely believed that he was hitting out at white farm owners, as they appeared to support the Opposition 'Movement for Democratic Change' (MDC) party.3  
 
 

[next page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 ]
 


1 Sorlin, P, Mass Media: Key Ideas, 1994, London and New York: Routledge. Pg. 103
Further references to Sorlin listed as (Sorlin) 
2 Said, Edward, Culture and Imperialism, 1994. New York: Vintage.Pg 17.
Further references to Said listed as (Said).
3 Swain, J and Tom Walker, 'Mugabe's Mayhem' in The Sunday Times, 23\4\2000.